That is 21 000 000 000 000 dollars.
If divided between the population of humans on earth everyone would share 3000 dollars of it. There are roughly billion people living with less than a dollar per day.

There need to be sovereign bonds, because that's how the government serves as the "investment of last resort."

Could you explain this in more detail? My concept of sovereign debt is a sort of fiat-value-by-degrees thing, and I can't really trust that interpretation because I know I don't fully understand economics.

Note, the US government's bond debt is NOT considered the single safest investment in the world, it's rated AA+ negative.
But some of the 16 governments which are considered a safer investment than the US actually don't pay interest at the moment.

I wonder how they find out where it came from and how much should have been paid to the US Government? Now that you have said that I would really like to know if there is an estimate and what the number would be.

Yes, you would probably fuck up poor local economies if you suddenly dumped fat wads of cash on them without providing them with long-term means of making money. Wealth isn't money, wealth is consistent access to stuff. Without changing access to stuff, having more money just devalues the money.

Diamons are pretty much worthless, have been for a very long time. the only reason they are worth anything is the deesbeers people market the hell out of them, and stockpile them so they dont reach the market. The resale on diamonds is disgustingly low.

Incorrect. DeBeers hasn't had a stronghold on the market for about a decade. High quality diamonds are being mined out of Canada and Russia that don't go through DeBeers.

DeBeers actually did stockpile diamonds until they realized that they were artificially keeping prices high for their competitors. The internet and alternate mining/distributor companies helps keep the prices of diamonds reasonable.

Also, keep in mind that the quality and not just the size of a diamond matters for its price. Large and high quality diamonds are rare. Large and low quality diamonds less rare, and small diamonds tend to be common.

What makes you think the money is not "completely invested"? Do you think that it is just sitting in a vault, depreciating? They probably loan a lot of it to buy government bonds, which is kind of perverse if you think about it, untaxed money lent back to governments to cover the shortfalls partially caused by off-shoring the money in the first place.

The money is being invested. Money does not stand still in a safe somewhere. Even if you deposit it on a bank not using it, the money in your account is used as a leverage to create more money, which is invested.

Any solution to today's problems requires addressing the economy's underlying weakness: a deficiency in aggregate demand. Firms won't invest if there is no demand for their products. And one of the key reasons for lack of demand is America's level of inequality — the highest in the advanced countries.

Because those at the top spend a much smaller portion of their income than those in the bottom and middle, when money moves from the bottom and middle to the top (as has been happening in America in the last dozen years), demand drops. The best way to promote employment today and sustained economic growth for the future, therefore, is to focus on the underlying problem of inequality. And this better economic performance in turn will generate more tax revenue, improving the country's fiscal position.

TLDR: those at the top are too greedy, and because of the lack of proper trickle down, decreases purchasing power of lower monetary class levels, thus decreases demand. Those at the top don't invest for future items that may become in demand because lack of demand for current products. Slowing the entire beast down to null. This is the opposite of a thriving society... a declining one.

At a guess I'd say you are proposing that there aren't enough physical resources to go around, which simply isn't true. The world, globally, produces more than enough food, it's just not getting distributed to the places that need it most like sub-Saharan Africa.

Money being used to invest in infrastructure and self-subsistence rather than being used to prop up the price of champagne and caviar actually would benefit people.

It's not about resources, it's about economics. If you gave EVERYONE in the world $3000, we'd all have $3000 more to spend. Obvious statement, you might think, but this has huge implications. Think of places where $3000 is LOADED. Merchants now have lots of money, and they know everyone else has lots of money, so the increase is twofold: they don't need money as much, and they know their customers have more money, so prices increase. To compound this, merchants THEY buy from now are raising their prices because of the same reason, and now they DO need the money, and can't lower their prices just to be nice.

Now you've got an economy based on a higher amount of money, you've injected lots into it, but a dollar is worth far less than before.

You could hope that no one raises their prices, because nothing SHOULD have changed, and in a perfect world, no one would raise prices because of it, and they're all happy, but somewhere up the supply chain, someone would.

When you consider the integration of these low-income economies with the developed world, yes, they have more buying power. This is because of the fact that $3000 really isn't much in the developed world; prices won't go up, and we'll all just be slightly pleased that we have another 3 grand...it's no different than a tax refund. The problem, of course, is now living costs have gone up, so that buying power really doesn't mean much in terms of developing that undeveloped nation.

All in all, it's quite possible that someone will just leech on those economy and suck that 21 trillion right back, leaving those nations even poorer.

Regarding resources, sure, we've got enough for the entire world to live a decent life. Heck, I'm probably living lower than if the entire world were true communist. Fact is, the world runs on greed, and that's why distributing cash equally would just hurt the world.

In times of peace? Yes. Once the French Revolution occurred, and was documented to the extent that it was, the ruling class became more aware of the give and take relationship between the rich and the poor, and still do to this day.

Precisely. Our old feudal ruling class was relatively ignorant and quaint compared to the bourgeoisie. They used crude force to keep us in line, now we are tricked into believing in, legitimizing, and helping to sustain our own bondage.

There needs to be a change in the appreciation of society. Having moved to China and seeing a few benefits afforded to the poor such as cheap public transportation, buses and cheap scooters. A healthy low class encourages development which increases wealth. Make it cheaper for poor people to move around and get better opportunity. China's no utopia but they didn't create this booming middleclass from nowhere. It remains to be seen of course how long it will continue to grow.

Nevertheless the people contributing to the development of society deserve some compensation for playing in the system. People turn to crime and delinquency when they can afford to, just like rich people. When the gain is better than the threat.

These idiots operate under the notion that, in the event of a full economic collapse, that there wouldn't be a military junta that would gather them up, seize their assets, and publicly execute them to placate the masses.

Offshore accounts in jurisdictions with no treaties or information sharing agreements.

If you are further interested, in banks that have no affiliation or branches in America so they dont get fucked over by the recently introduced legislation on banks with international branches and operations.

Caymans is a good location. But what's better than knowing where they hide it is knowing who the self-interested crooks are that are running our rigged banking and government systems. Cronies like that need safe places to hide their tracks and meet up inconspicuously, even in the most public places. Here's a hint that will help you find them: the building directly behind the government complex that faces Cairo's Tahir Square is the InterContinental Hotel. The building behind Scotland Yard is the InterContinental Hotel. The InterContinental New York is called 'The Barclay' (LIBOR anyone?) and is on the same block as UBS. The InterContinental hotel is separated from the White House only by the Department of Treasury. Oh, and inb4 someone says what about Wall St. and the Vatican... The holding company IHG that manages them also owns Holiday Inn: there is one at the back door to the Federal Reserve on Wall St., and one that butts up to the side of a ramp separating it from the Vatican hotel where Cardinals stay when advising the Pope.

Yes (a bit) seriously. I know a lot of people who can build amazing things with little money. The fact that all this money seems to rot wherever makes me think, that there's a huge, huge lack of imagination involved - which I find just as frightening as the sum itself.

This is really a good point. I've always thought that North America's current problem is that it lacks vision; it doesn't dream. If it can't be done in five years, then let someone else do it. That mentality might have worked in the past, but the problem is that is what everyone else is thinking and no one is doing. It's sort of a sign of the times when a search engine company and a film writer/director are the ones who are pushing to mine asteroids.

The amazing things for humanity that could be done with but a small fraction of that money makes me utterly loathe the people that think it is alright to just put it in an offshore bank account and let it sit.

as someone who has grown up with very little money, I find it absolutely appalling that someone with that kind of money could sit by and let the world burn like it currently is.

those fuckers should be FORCED to put all of that money towards public service and making the world a better place for the human race as a whole. when everyone has an at least reasonable standard of living, the world will be a much better place than it currently is and I feel like we will actually be able to make progress as a race.

"they" should be using that money to fund scientific research, and public works projects, and working to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure that we have (at least here in the US, not sure about how the roads and grid and such are fairing in the rest of the world, but I know that here in the US, shit is fucked up in terms of infrastructure.... roads are crumbling, bridges are falling, the grid is failing...... so much shit is so fucked up....)

I'll end my rant here, simply because I don't know what else to say.....

have you seen what your government does with your money? progressing society isn't the top concern.

Edit: I mean, if you are a super rich guy, and your top priority is progressing society, or combatting poverty, or fighting aids or whatever, the absolute last fucking thing you would even imagine doing is writing a blank check for your fortune to the government.

A million metric tons of cocaine and hookers? This is the only way to suicide. This leads to the ultimate truth: they must, obviously, be in a suicide club. Once they succeed (with wide grins), the money will then 'trickle down' to the illegitimate children of their last reminiscent of their humanity and to the inner cities where they bought their cocaine.

Perhaps if I had the heart, I would have learned of this in Economics 420 (had I gone that far through that dark room, with it's invisible hands and probing...whatevers). Reaganomics 'trickle down' and 'just say no' now conjoin into it's true purpose. 'Just say no' allowed this group to defer market sensibilities, thus opening up the possibility of their ultimate project: a 40 foot tall structure built out of hookers and cemented with cocaine, that will house the bodies of these great me who have relieved the plights of the inner cities. Pioneers of pure philanthropy, who will turn the socio-economic downfall of society through their generosity; while seemingly doing the opposite to everything that they 'should' hold dear. This masterstroke is brilliance in the making, that I'm sure history will appreciate.

One of the most famous quotes about money and business is, "Wealth is not created or destroyed, it is simply transferred."

That's actually a common misconception. It can easily be shown to not exactly be true with a few examples. In 80,000 BC the world had nothing that we could consider "wealth" except for maybe some shiny rocks. Somehow, fleets of jet aircraft, massive reserves of currency, skyscrapers and other real-estate, companies, etc. have come into existence since then. The opposite is also true. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster were to become evil and magic away every single building, home appliance, and automobile on the planet, we'd all be distinctly poorer with less wealth in the world. Money and wealth isn't zero sum in the least.

According to Henry's research, the top 10 private banks, which include UBS and Credit Suisse in Switzerland, as well as the US investment bank Goldman Sachs, managed more than £4tn in 2010, a sharp rise from £1.5tn five years earlier.

A far-reaching new study suggests a staggering $21tn in assets has been lost to global tax havens. If taxed, that could have been enough to put parts of Africa back on its feet – and even solve the euro crisis.

I've long suspected that we are experiencing a "trickle out" rather than "trickle down" phenomenon.

Sad to know that I've been correct, and its of a slightly greater magnitude than I had theorized.

When I searched for more articles about this, I learned that it is VERY VERY old news. Many articles from around 2010 seem to mention a figure of $18tn and other articles from 2005 mention trillions in general.

Just because it is old news does not mean that it isn't a problem. Wages for the middle class have remained stagnant for how long now? It seems to me American workers have been increasing productivity only to have the fruits of their labor stashed away offshore as infrastructures crumble. Well, I guess this explains why I can't afford to spend any more on any given item than I was able to afford ten years ago.

I do understand that the government has been making efforts to repatriate some of the offshored funds but it doesn't look like those efforts have been very successful since we seem to make it so easy for people to take it offshore anyways.

Inheritance tax has some issues though. At least in rural areas. Farm equipment can run into the millions for just a few tractors, but they are required for running the farm. So an issue that I know is some what of a problem is family owned farms are destroyed because of their assets vs liquid funds and inheritance tax.

Then exempt farm equipment? The worst case scenario would the that the superrich would be forced to hilariously launder money into tractors so they could pass on more than is legally allowed to their children.

But seriously, I think that the law could be written effectively to protect farmers.

No, the worse case is farm equipment gets an exemption. Then, families that own grocery chains or car dealerships say they should get an exemption because if they had to pay taxes on their assets, why would have to get rid of the family businesses. Then owners of shipping companies ask for an exemption for the same reason. Then every industry that can is lobbying congressmen to exempt their industry.

Think that wouldn't happen? Have you seen how many pages the current tax laws are?

Go try and kill someone worth +1,000,000,000. Here's a hint, not going to happen. Once you have more money than small countries, you tend to have a shitton of security around you, and you are well insulated from political threats as well.

Have you seen what happens when Americans "mass protest"? Jack shit. Nothing happens at all.

Take to the streets? WTF, no one cares. You disrupt traffic for a day or two, then have to go home because there's a recession and if you lose your job your family is screwed.

So then what - quit your job? Or just have mass protests of the unemployed? You'll be written off as either wilfully unemployed idiots, or losers who should be out looking for work instead of making a pointless mess and making other people late for work by blocking traffic.

Start smashing things? Now you're a "terrorist."

Maybe a letter campaign, write to your politicians and tell them off? Letters get filed into the official regulatory trashcans. Call them? If you get through at all, an intern will take your abuse. Boycott companies involved? Unless you're a self-sustaining hermit farmer who makes your own clothes, good luck with that. Vote? Ha! Don't get me started on that!

Got any suggestions? I'm serious; do you have any ideas for effective means of protest in the US? Because all the old ways are completely worthless now.

"No." Now go home and complain about it on the Internet while I light my cigar with a $100 Dollar bill."

We need a massive crowd of people, an unmovable object, a focus at the real perpetrators, not the politicians who just facilitate them. To be my honest I'm kind of optimistic about it all because the focus has shifted towards the banks who are causing untold damage across the whole planet. People have to feel effected to realise how badly they are getting shafted, and that's coming. It's going to get so much worse. The EU cannot sustain bailouts to other countries who will possibly crash as Greece did. That will have a huge knock on effect to America and all the way to China. Europe stops importing from China, China stops producing, China stops buying US debt, the Federal Reserve and the US dollar loses its trading status.

We have to be careful though at the critical moment and that will be when the governments and banks offer the "solution" to the worlds ills. A one world government and financial integration will be it.

There is a fact in there that makes me cringe. You see, democracy technically works - if the people want person A to be president, then he will be. The problem is that lots of people are actually not able to inform themselves and pierce the illusions of mass media - a mild form of brainwashing, you could say. So - at the moment, the consensus of the people seems to be "it is okay as it is", motives being laziness and a misinformed attitude.

That means that a group acting against the status quo would be a minority and as such anti-democratic, as it bypasses democracy entirely. Unless there is a way to get a large amount of people to inform themselves and take action quickly, what you propose may be good and just, but also against the will of the people.

That means it's a decision about whether we want to accept the will of our fellow citizens or act as a minority. If we really want to act as a minority, then the how comes into play. Lobbyism? Can we use their own dirty tricks? Something else? What?

We have to meet this decision ourselves, I fear we have no guidance here. In such a case, nothing is true and everything is permitted.

I think the only reason people do not care, and allow themselves to be misinformed (aside from the genuine morons) is that they are struggling as it is. Get home from second job, watch TV coz you have no energy, you're not going to watch real news about whatever's going on in the world, you're going to watch mind numbing bs. Problem is it's a catch-22. You can't get more equality, and a non-overworked population, without first getting rid of the problems causing it.

I hear what you are saying and it is a perfect example of the cultural hegemony; a means of which one social class can manipulate the system of values and mores of a society in order to create and establish a ruling-class worldview (Weltanschauung) that justifies the status quo of bourgeois domination upon the other social classes of the society.

Sorry for the copypasta.

The important thing to know about this false worldview is that it relies upon our complicity for its domination.

Got any suggestions? I'm serious; do you have any ideas for effective means of protest in the US? Because all the old ways are completely worthless now.

Lawrence Lessig (founder of Creative Commons) has a plan for removing the money out of politics, which gives everyone a clean slate (I'm not sure how better to articulate this) to participate in government. I'm not convinced it will work, but it's something different. Relies on some constitution convention mumbo jumbo (I'm not too familiar with US gov't but somewhat fascinated at the same time.) Here is a google tech talk by Lawrence Lessig explaining the problem and his proposed plan to solve it.

The only protest is to educate others. Sunserpent was right in that our only solution is as individuals to not be a source of revenue/income/profit for the corporate world. From buying used stuff, to being self-sufficient, buying local, to the other ideas mentioned and more.

Power-mongers are like bad dreams: if you ignore them properly, they go away. Their world is built upon a lower-class; they cannot afford to enslave us against our will. So remove yourself from the market, even a little, and teach others to do the same.

Lastly, and this is the one that is going to kill all of you: learn to live without the internet. The other media outlets are dying, so their only options are to control or topple the freedoms of the internet. That is a truth that should extend to the rest of your life as well: if your interpersonal connections and dependencies were an internet connection, everything you do should be peer to peer unless you want someone else telling you how to live your life.

I disagree with your last paragraph. We should defend the internet with everything we've got. Of course we should know how to live without it, but we shouldn't accept that they will control it. I think if there is anything we can defend, it is the internet.

Correct. Except i don't see anyone getting their hands dirty like that anytime soon. Everyone is either too lazy, content, not pissed off enough. It would work though. Kill off all these fucks who do nothing but destroy and act like a parasite on society.

I would feel bad about this, but at the same time as a small business owner I have found that anyone who as dealt with a VAT would very much prefer to be rid of it. Make taxation reasonable and this kind of thing won't happen as much.

The whole discussion about taxation and fairness is the problem. Look at the majority of comments on here. They are fuming and angry. An idea cannot be passed with anger, but must be brought forth with logic and reasoning. These rich "assholes" as some have put it, have very real reasoning for why they do what they do. Whether you think they are right or wrong, getting them to change their mind is not going to come from anger. I wish more people thought about that.

Not to fuck up the circlejerk or anything but given where this report came from its likely nonsense.

First on the page for the report there is this

Raw data and other documents will be uploaded in due course.

so we can't even look at the data.

Turn on that critical thinking for second, if the Heritage foundation made a press release saying "OMG, the wealthy pay 90% tax" would you believe it particularly if they didn't disclose the data they used to come to that conclusion?

Secondly these are ASSETS not CAPITAL.

Thirdly on their previous reports on this issue they come up with a figure for non-compliance which exceeds the estimated which the bodies charged with enforcing tax rules estimate. In the 2005 report they estimated US non-compliance at nearly 7% while the IRS estimated it at 0.3%.

Fourthly many people own international assets who are not part of the "wealthy elite". While I am sure those who have bought investment properties and timeshares abroad would love to be part of the "wealthy elite" they really are not.

This is simply financial terrorism of the highest order, and yet, we as a people refuse to collectively stand up for what is right and speak out for truth. If this type of short-term complacency won't stop, it'll only get worse in the near future.